or has suffered blindness in both eyes, rendering him so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance. This loose definition of blindness has created a variety of interpretations. In many instances, the blinded veteran who has overcome his handicap to the extent that he is no longer completely helpless, is given a lesser rating. H. R. 10461 would correct this lack of uniformity in interpretation by spelling out "blindness in both eyes having only light perception" as the criteria for entitlement under subparagraph (m). H. R. 10798 H. R. 10798 would provide widows and parents the opportunity to elect to receive death compensation under the Veterans' Benefit Act of 1957, notwithstanding a prior election to receive dependency and indemnity compensation under Public Law 881, 84th Congress. AMVETS endorse the intent of this legislation. Many parents, in particular, elected DIC without realizing that a changing income would cause changes in monthly DIC payments. In haste, many widows made the same mistake—an ill-advised election. H. R. 3822 Mr. Chairman, I have one more bill that I would like to comment upon, and that is H. R. 3822, introduced by Mr. Christopher. AMVETS endorses the intent of that bill as well. It would extend the line of duty status for certain purposes in laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. Too frequently we find the Veterans' Administration ruling contrary to the rulings of the service department that the veteran's injury or death was actually incurred in line of duty and was not due to misconduct, this in spite of the fact that the military department based their findings upon an initial determination and two reviews by both the authority which appointed the officer making the review and then the reviewing authorities themselves. Yet the Veterans' Administration frequently rules contrary to such service department rulings, ruling that the injury or death was not in line of duty and was due to the veteran's own misconduct. We contend that the service department's ruling that the veteran's injury or death was incurred in line of duty and was not due to misconduct should be followed by the Veterans' Administration, and H. R. 3822 would authorize that procedure. That completes our testimony, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and we appreciate the opportunity again to have presented the views of AMVETS on these important subjects. Mr. DORN. John, would you care to comment on a case like this: I had a young man from my district who went into the service recently when he was 18 years old. His mother would not sign a permit for him to buy an automobile, but some of his friends in the Army where he was stationed overseas said he was 21 years old and under that affidavit that they drew up he bought a car, drank some beer on an Army post, got drunk and was killed. The Army has ruled time and time again that that was his own willful misconduct. Had he been at home his mother would not have permitted him to buy the car and it would have been more difficult for him to get the beer. Would you care to comment on a case like that? When the Army drafts a boy at 18 it seems they should assume some parental responsibility for the boy: The mother has no means of support. The Army says it was his own willful misconduct. Mr. HOLDEN. I can appreciate this man's youth, and of course that should be an extenuating circumstance in the Army's finding of line of duty. On the other hand, I do not believe military discipline, if it is to be upheld, would permit exceptions to be made of his youth. If he is old enough to be in military service he should be old enough to be subject to military discipline the same as an older man. However, I do believe the investigation to determine line of duty status should certainly take his youth into consideration. Mr. DORN. Thank you. Mr. Fino, have you any questions? Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you very much. Mr. DORN. I would like to say Mr. Fino has a bill to increase the burial allowance from $150 to $250. Is there anything you would like to say on that? Mr. FINO. Not at this time. Mr. DORN. We will now hear from the American Legion. We are always glad to have you appear before our committee, Mr. Olson. STATEMENTS OF JOHN J. CORCORAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; AND DR. H. D. SHAPIRO, SENIOR MEDICAL CONSULTANT, NATIONAL REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; ACCOMPANIED BY CLARENCE H. OLSON, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR; CHARLES W. STEVENS, ASSISTANT NATIONAL REHABILITATION DIRECTOR; AND DR. IRVING B. BRICK, MEDICAL CONSULTANT, THE AMERICAN LEGION Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are somewhat pressed for time this morning, and we will do our best to complete the testimony in the time allotted. My name is Clarence H. Olson, assistant director of the legislative program. I would like to say one word before introducing our witnesses, if I may. Mr. DORN. You certainly may. Mr. OLSON. During the time when our national commander appeared before your committee last February, a member or members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee stated an objection to certain legislation which had been approved which disrupted the pension program that came out of this committee. I am happy to say the American Legion is going to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee next week in the hope we can persuade them to pass a bill that will remove the provisions that disrupt the pension program, and we hope the Veterans' Affairs Committee will support that in the House. Payments by the VA of disability pension to war veterans and death compensation to helpless children of such veterans reduce social-security payments paid on account of disability. We want this offset provision removed. Today I am surrounded by competent people. This is Mr. John J. Corcoran, director of our National Rehabilitation Commission, having succeeded T. O. Kraabel. Of course, you all know Dr. Shapiro, our senior medical consultant. And this is Mr. Charles W. Stevens, our assistant national rehabilitation director; and Dr. Irving B. Brick, medical consultant, who has gained considerable prestige in the field of internal medicine. Mr. Corcoran will lead off the testimony. Mr. DORN. Very well. Mr. Corcoran, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CORCORAN Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this opportunity to express the views of the American Legion on legislation which is scheduled for hearing today is very much appreciated. Of the 46 bills listed for hearing, either annual national conventions or our national executive committee have instructed us to support enactment by this Congress of measures proposed in 5 bills which I will discuss. To support our proposals, I believe the medical testimony, which we will offer, will be helpful to the committee in its considerations. Our senior medical consultant, Dr. H. D. Shapiro, will present medical testimony, supporting our proposal for an extension of the periods during which an initial manifestation of multiple sclerosis or the chronic functional psychoses will provide a basis for wartime service connection. To qualify him as an expert witness, I might mention that he is a diplomate of the American Specialty Boards in both neurology and psychiatry. He is thus qualified to speak with authority concerning both diseases. Incidentally, he is also associate clinical professor of neurology at George Washington University Medical School and senior attending psychiatrist at the new Washington Hospital Center. I want the committee to know also our medical consultant in internal medicine, Dr. Irving B. Brick. He is a diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine, and consultant to the Clinical Director, National Institutes of Health. He is also a consultant in his specialty in several local hospitals and is a member of the American College of Physicians, the American Federation for Clinical Research, the Southern Society of Clinical Investigation, the American Gastroenterological Association, the Gastroenterology Research Group and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and others. He is available to answer all questions in his specialty. H. R. 7088 was introduced in the first session by request of the American Legion to provide authority for the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to fix a special compensation rate for service-incurred disability in any case in which he finds its severity, type, or nature warrants a compenstion award in excess of the rate prescribed for total disability. The veterans regulation in effect when the bill was introduced did not permit this. However, in regard to certain specific disabilities for which a statutory rate was prescribed above that authorized for disability evaluated as total under the rating schedule, the veterans regulation did authorize the Administrator to allow the next higher rate or an intermedite rate, in no event in excess of the highest rate provided, if he found the service-incurred disabilities exceeded the requirements for any of these rates. The veterans regulation was repealed December 31, 1957, by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 which continues the authority conferred on the Administrator in regard to allowing the next higher rate or an intermediate rate. Looking at the language set forth in this act, we think it might be interpreted as having expanded his authority so that he can now do that which is proposed in H. R. 7088. I do not like to engage in a discussion of technicalities in a hearing such as this but find I must, in order to help the committee decide what disposition shall be made of this bill. If the Administrator does not have the authority to do what the bill proposes, we sincerely believe he should have it. Our experience in the cases of several profoundly disabled veterans clearly shows the need, in order that compensation awarded for service-connected disability will reflect the actual extent of disability. One of the cases of which we have a record is that of Douglas B. Davenport C-3889980 of Wisconsin. He understands his case is being cited in this hearing. His compensation award is based upon an evaluation of total disability under the schedule for rating disabilities, a combination of seven disabilities resulting from combat wounds and injuries sustained during World War II. Ratings on the disabilities total 280 percent; 1 is 100 percent; 1 is 60 percent; 2 are 30 percent; and 3 are 20 percent. Rates of monthly compensation for wartime service-connected disability are provided in section 315 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56), as amended by Public Law 85-168 in section 4. The rate of $225 for total disability is prescribed in subsection 315 (j). This is the maximum rate for schedularly evalulated total disability. Higher rates for certain specific disabilities are prescribed in subsections 315 (1) $309; (m) $359; (n) $401; and (0) $450, the highest rate. Subsection 315 (p) reads: "In the event the veteran's service-incurred disabilities exceed the requirements for any of the rates prescribed in this section, the Administrator, in his discretion, may allow the next higher rate or an intermediate rate, but in no event in excess of $450." I call attention to the words "in this section." Public Law 182, 79th Congress, an act to amend the veterans regulations to provide additional rates of compensation and remedy inequalities as to specific service-incurred disabilities in excess of total disability, was approved September 20, 1945. It amended subparagraphs (k) to (o) of paragraph II, part I, Veterans Regulation Ñumbered 1 (a) and added to paragraph II a new subparagraph (p) which read: "In the event the disabled person's service-incurred disabilities exceed the requirements for any of the rates prescribed herein, the Administrator, in his discretion, may allow the next higher rate or an intermediate rate, but in no event in excess of $300." The maximum was then $300. Under paragraph II, compensation rates for schedularly evaluated disabilities were prescribed in subparagraphs (a) to (j). I call attention to the word "herein" in the quoted subparagraph. Veterans' Administration Regulation 1236 contains the instructions for assigning intermediate rates or the next higher rate for the specific service-incurred disabilities set forth previously in Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), part I, paragraph II, subparagraphs (1) to (o) and now in Public Law 85-56, subsections 315 (1) to (0). Subparagraph (p), paragraph II, part I, Veterans Regulation 1 (a) has been interpreted in the Veterans' Administration as limiting the authority of the Administrator to prescribe intermediate rates or the next higher rate to cases in which compensation was provided for specific disabilities in subparagraphs (1) to (n). This appears to be due to the use of the word "herein" in subparagraph (p). It is obvious, from actions taken by the Veterans' Administration on several claims presented for consideration, that the agency did not believe that the compensation rate prescribed in subparagraph (1) could be assigned in the Davenport case I mentioned or similar cases where compensation was awarded for total disability as prescribed in subparagraph (j), or that an intermediate rate between subparagraph (j) and subparagraph (1) could be assigned. As the Administrator's authority is now granted in subsection 315 (p) of Public Law 85-56, and as the words "in this section” appear in this subsection, an interpretation might well be that he would have authority to find that the rate prescribed for total disability in subsection (j) is inadequate in an individual case and to require assignment of the rate prescribed in subsection (1) or an intermediate rate. As the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56) consolidated many laws, it would need to be determined if the Congress intended in its enactment to enlarge the authority of the Administrator beyond that granted in one of the laws which was consolidated, according to the Veterans' Administration's interpretation of that earlier law. Enactment of legislation to accomplish the purpose of H. R. 7088 will clearly define the Administrator's authority, if there is a question as to that which he has now. We strongly urge this. Because the bill was introduced before Public Law 85-56 was approved and would have amended provisions of a veterans regulation which this law repealed, I recommend striking the language following the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following: That section 315 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56) is amended in section 315 by adding a new subparagraph (r) to read as follows: "In any case in which the Administrator finds the severity, type, or nature of disability warrants a compensation award in excess of the rate prescribed for total disability in subparagraph (j), or as provided for total disability in section 335 of this Act, and he finds that he cannot provide for establishment of a rate compatible with the extent of existing disability under authority conferred upon him in subsection (p) of this section, he may, in his discretion, award the rate prescribed in subsection (1) or an intermediate rate as he may deem appropriate. SEC. 2. This amendment shall be effective from date of its approval." Through this language, the Administrator would have authority to assign a rate in both wartime and peacetime cases which would compensate veterans equitably, section 335 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 being the present basis for awards of compensation based upon peacetime service connection of disabilities. May I interpolate there. This has been an extremely technical discussion of the provisions of the present law, the provisions of the |